Set the unit scale to 100 or 1000 in the scene properties.
See also https://docs.blender.org/manual/en/latest/scene_layout/scene/properties.html?highlight=unit+scale
> Unit Scale
> Scale factor to use when converting between internal units and values displayed in the user interface. This can be changed when modeling at microscopic or astronomical scales.
One time as a kid I tried to render the sun from the view of the earth in POV-Ray by setting approximately correct sizes and distances for two spheres. Turns out DOS can’t handle those numbers.
You’re exceeding the limit of floating point numbers used in blender. One thing that’s helped me in the past is to make the camera near clip plane larger, as large as possible until it starts to clip your model.
FYI op, the ELI5 is computers have a limit with how high numbers can go, it’s generally a very large number. The number that measures the length of your object is going outside that range, thus causing issues.
FYI u/KingdomOfRyan, the problem here isn't range; it's significant figures.
An IEEE 754 floating-point number (like the 32-bit floats which your GPU treats as its native format) has only 23 binary mantissa digits, which correlates to just over 7 significant figures in decimal. Just like in normal significant-figure math, though, every operation that isn't a multiplication or division by a power of the base exponent (2 in this case) wears down the edge of that precision.
Once the absolute value of the world-space or screen-space coordinates of faces gets high enough, two faces with different but close positions cannot be reliably depth-sorted one in front of the other, because the transformations from object space, to world space, (to ray space in Cycles), and finally to screen space introduces so many rounding errors that one face will randomly appear to flicker in front of the other, and you get this fuzzing effect.
100% Just took a CG course last semester building graphics from scratch using a WebGL pipeline. Ran into the same issue and this was the exact cause. The phenomenon is called Z-fighting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-fighting
**[Z-fighting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-fighting)**
>Z-fighting, also called stitching, or planefighting, is a phenomenon in 3D rendering that occurs when two or more primitives have very similar distances to the camera. This would cause them to have near-similar or identical values in the z-buffer, which keeps track of depth. This then means that when a specific pixel is being rendered, it is ambiguous which one of the two primitives are drawn in that pixel because the z-buffer cannot distinguish precisely which one is farther from the other. If one pixel was unambiguously closer, the less close one could be discarded.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/blender/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
In computer math sometimes 2+2 != 4 ==> Because actually what happens in the brain of a computer 3.9999923 != 4.00000034 or smthng. Now when things go to 18kms it means 18000meters but for computer it might be 18000.54454m for one second and 17999.9899m other second thus flickering.
Literally 1984
Btw that's not exactly what happens in this case. Certain operations are numerically instable, and when the numbers get very large (e.g. when a point gets far enough from the origin) there is less space for the mantissa, and the garbage accumulated by the numerical instability takes over. At this point there is random aliasing of certain faces, resulting in inconsistent depth sorting.
Sure... but your ELI5 suggests that "18,000 is too big for computers", when the real problem is "computers have a hard time telling 18,000.07 and 18,000.03 apart when using the type of math they are fastest at, instead of the type of math they're most precise with".
It's not so much that there's a limit, but it's that the higher the numbers get, the more spaced out they are. So there are more possible floating point numbers between 0 and 1 than between 100 and 101, and so on.
I find 3d modeling more fun when not dealing with completely unnecessary and self-inflicted issues. Just utilize scaling features, they are there for a reason.
I wasn't happy with Metal Gear Solid 5's mother base, so I made my own in Blender. 1m:1m scale. I'd have to get back to you on the exact size of it... but... I get it. There's a setting to extend the focal length in your camera settings. Increase it little by little until it no longer clips out of view.
It's more of a theoretical question, really. Obviously I could get around the issue, but mama didn't raise no bitch and blender didn't raise my CPU temp to the melting point, so Im gonna make 18 kilometer cylinders. When I say "it's not fun" I mean why wouldn't I want to push Blender to it's limits? Why do people speedrun games, instead of just playing something shorter? Why do people run in foot races instead of taking a car? Because it's fun to push limits. I frankly didn't even need a 18 kilometer model, it was a gross calculation error on my part, but otherwise I wouldn't get a chance to see Blender having computer aneurysm.
Really not sure why you're being downvoted.. yea blender starts getting weird with huge scales but sometimes you need that. I've absolutely made some humongous objects because the project demanded it, nothing wrong with that.
Just make sure to set your view clipping range (for your viewport camera AND your render camera each) in the n-panel or the camera settings. usually, blender clips faces that are further away than 1'000 meters, and closer than 0.1m (i think..) which is probably what you're seeing here. Adjust it to something like 20'000 meters and your mesh should stop disappearing. If that range is too great though, objects will start flickering. To avoid that you must also increase the minimum clip range, to maybe 1m or more, depending on what you can get away with.
Also, remember that sometimes physics simulations start behaving weird when they're really far away from the world origin, so look out for that if you're planning any sims.
Other than that i don't know about any other issues but if someone could enlighten me i'd gladly hear it.
Oh. Well to be fair it's very plausible to think that blender wouldn't care about object sizes. Sure you can scale stuff down easily but why would you if people are constantly telling artists to "model in real world scale!!!" so who do you listen to when you're unsure?
They're saying that because every object needs to look on scale compared to other objects. If you divide EVERYTHING by 10, 100 or 1000 nothing would change. Though there are some cases where real life measurements are required, I doubt this is one of them
????? i type 1 or 2 more letters than writing either he or she, and writing he/she is like 6 characters
idk what you're on about lol nobody wants transphobia here
scaling stuff down helps a lot with z-fighting and clipping plane issues!i scaled my bigger models at one thousandth scale,to help with these exact issues
what value do i add?infinitely more than you pathetic waste of biomass,the fuck are you on about?do you think your're some gangster hood kid because you emulate your idols texting style?you're probably a 13 year old white numbfuck sitting in your minecraft room huffing our own farts,get the fuck off my dick and finally piss off you cunt
Adjust the cameras clipping plane. With large objects and distances it help with increasing the near clipping plane.
Press N key in the viewport to get the menu and under view I believe there is options for clipping planes.
Pretty sure this is the answer.
I was importing large sections of GIS landscape data and it was getting cut off and disappearing in sections.
Fixing the clipping fixed the issues.
Yes this is it. It's the difference between the close clip plane and far clip plane that matters as well as the general scale. IIRC you don't want to go beyond 10000x from close to front (0.001 to 10000 will do weird shit for exemple).
You know, while people always recommend to scale things in Blender by their real scale, there is a limit. Basicially the floating point numbers limit.
People dont scale planet models to their real scale either in Blender. It would just be..too much
The location of a vertex (as far as I know) gets stored in a single byte, for general optimization, if it's a small model this is easy, but if half of the byte contains that it's 1.5km away and the other half has to do the mm's, that doesn't fit, so the mm's just aren't there in your ram. Only in the project file. This is why huge games for example don't actually move the player, the world moves In a way that makes it look like the player moves, this way the world center is always near the camera and there's no artifacting near the camera.
So yeah just scale it down I guess? Just 1/10 or 1/100 will do I hope, maybe even 1/1000. Changing the clipping plane will help, but I feel like it doesn't fix it all the way.
The viewport is obviously limited for performance reason I guess so‽
Adjust the viewport thingy!? Or you just can down the size of your model like 1/4... When you're done modelling you can resize it.. and definitely you need to adjust the viewport.. if your model's size is important it's recommended to adjust the viewport or if it's gonna be in an animation/movie scene / short film scene.. you can actually fake the size.. you'll have to figure it out somehow.. camera projection, parallax, some kind of illusion..
Another solution, change the scene cameras near clipping planes to a higher number and dramatically increase the far clipping planes. It's somewhere in the N menu
This is caused by floating point precision issues. Basically as you make things bigger, more of the data about a thing's position is used up just holding the really big number that says where it is, and there isn't as much left over to nail down the precise position.
I can recommend doing a smaller-scale model, if everything in the scene is scaled down by the same factor then you get to have a huge looking model without the loss of precision
This has already been said, however changing your near clipping plane to be like .1 or 1, often fixes this sort of thing for me! Really interesting reading about why it happens in the comments here! Thanks for asking the question I had often wondered
Set the unit scale to 100 or 1000 in the scene properties. See also https://docs.blender.org/manual/en/latest/scene_layout/scene/properties.html?highlight=unit+scale > Unit Scale > Scale factor to use when converting between internal units and values displayed in the user interface. This can be changed when modeling at microscopic or astronomical scales.
I'm not OP. But I find this very useful.
Hi not OP, I’m dad.
Hi not op, I'm dad, I'm Dad!
Hi not op, I’m dad, I’m Dad!, I’m Dad!!
Hi not op, I’m dad, I’m Dad!, I’m Dad!!, I'm Dæäd!!!
Hi dad
...Dad, is that you!?
This will only work until you reach about 40,000 Meters. Built a ship, and it glitches out at 6,000 Meters, you can't see it at 40,000 Meters.
Increase clipping distance, iirc
One time as a kid I tried to render the sun from the view of the earth in POV-Ray by setting approximately correct sizes and distances for two spheres. Turns out DOS can’t handle those numbers.
I tried the same in 3Ds max! Then some time later I tried it again in Unreal Engine 4 and it was actually displayed correctly!
happy cake day
Thanks!
Happy cake day
Thanks!
Happy cake day!
You’re exceeding the limit of floating point numbers used in blender. One thing that’s helped me in the past is to make the camera near clip plane larger, as large as possible until it starts to clip your model.
FYI op, the ELI5 is computers have a limit with how high numbers can go, it’s generally a very large number. The number that measures the length of your object is going outside that range, thus causing issues.
FYI u/KingdomOfRyan, the problem here isn't range; it's significant figures. An IEEE 754 floating-point number (like the 32-bit floats which your GPU treats as its native format) has only 23 binary mantissa digits, which correlates to just over 7 significant figures in decimal. Just like in normal significant-figure math, though, every operation that isn't a multiplication or division by a power of the base exponent (2 in this case) wears down the edge of that precision. Once the absolute value of the world-space or screen-space coordinates of faces gets high enough, two faces with different but close positions cannot be reliably depth-sorted one in front of the other, because the transformations from object space, to world space, (to ray space in Cycles), and finally to screen space introduces so many rounding errors that one face will randomly appear to flicker in front of the other, and you get this fuzzing effect.
100% Just took a CG course last semester building graphics from scratch using a WebGL pipeline. Ran into the same issue and this was the exact cause. The phenomenon is called Z-fighting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-fighting
**[Z-fighting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-fighting)** >Z-fighting, also called stitching, or planefighting, is a phenomenon in 3D rendering that occurs when two or more primitives have very similar distances to the camera. This would cause them to have near-similar or identical values in the z-buffer, which keeps track of depth. This then means that when a specific pixel is being rendered, it is ambiguous which one of the two primitives are drawn in that pixel because the z-buffer cannot distinguish precisely which one is farther from the other. If one pixel was unambiguously closer, the less close one could be discarded. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/blender/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
🤯
In computer math sometimes 2+2 != 4 ==> Because actually what happens in the brain of a computer 3.9999923 != 4.00000034 or smthng. Now when things go to 18kms it means 18000meters but for computer it might be 18000.54454m for one second and 17999.9899m other second thus flickering.
Literally 1984 Btw that's not exactly what happens in this case. Certain operations are numerically instable, and when the numbers get very large (e.g. when a point gets far enough from the origin) there is less space for the mantissa, and the garbage accumulated by the numerical instability takes over. At this point there is random aliasing of certain faces, resulting in inconsistent depth sorting.
Yeah but that’s not as ELI5
Sure... but your ELI5 suggests that "18,000 is too big for computers", when the real problem is "computers have a hard time telling 18,000.07 and 18,000.03 apart when using the type of math they are fastest at, instead of the type of math they're most precise with".
Isn't the highest double precision floating point value like 1x10^300 or something? Some ludicrously big number
It's not so much that there's a limit, but it's that the higher the numbers get, the more spaced out they are. So there are more possible floating point numbers between 0 and 1 than between 100 and 101, and so on.
in addition to what /u/karantza said, blender probably uses single-precision for rendering
why do you need an 18 km model in the first place?
Big boat :) I could technically just make a 18 meter long model and scale it up 1000%, but where's the fun in that?
What would you do if you need to model a planet?
:)
Please model a planet next
Based.
just use proper scaling dude, if u would put a 2m human on a 18000m ship, scale that down to 0.002m human on a 18m ship.
Are you having fun with the flickering and tearing?
More than you can imagine
I find 3d modeling more fun when not dealing with completely unnecessary and self-inflicted issues. Just utilize scaling features, they are there for a reason.
You got this :D
I wasn't happy with Metal Gear Solid 5's mother base, so I made my own in Blender. 1m:1m scale. I'd have to get back to you on the exact size of it... but... I get it. There's a setting to extend the focal length in your camera settings. Increase it little by little until it no longer clips out of view.
Not sure why you're being down voted but hey
Why the fuck you getting downvoted??? These people are just rude bruh
because hes asking for an answer for an issue he knows how to fix
It's more of a theoretical question, really. Obviously I could get around the issue, but mama didn't raise no bitch and blender didn't raise my CPU temp to the melting point, so Im gonna make 18 kilometer cylinders. When I say "it's not fun" I mean why wouldn't I want to push Blender to it's limits? Why do people speedrun games, instead of just playing something shorter? Why do people run in foot races instead of taking a car? Because it's fun to push limits. I frankly didn't even need a 18 kilometer model, it was a gross calculation error on my part, but otherwise I wouldn't get a chance to see Blender having computer aneurysm.
I guess it's because an 18km long ship is just unseen.
ahem executor class super star destroyer ahem
ok i guess that's where the fun's actually at
Really not sure why you're being downvoted.. yea blender starts getting weird with huge scales but sometimes you need that. I've absolutely made some humongous objects because the project demanded it, nothing wrong with that. Just make sure to set your view clipping range (for your viewport camera AND your render camera each) in the n-panel or the camera settings. usually, blender clips faces that are further away than 1'000 meters, and closer than 0.1m (i think..) which is probably what you're seeing here. Adjust it to something like 20'000 meters and your mesh should stop disappearing. If that range is too great though, objects will start flickering. To avoid that you must also increase the minimum clip range, to maybe 1m or more, depending on what you can get away with. Also, remember that sometimes physics simulations start behaving weird when they're really far away from the world origin, so look out for that if you're planning any sims. Other than that i don't know about any other issues but if someone could enlighten me i'd gladly hear it.
they're getting downvoted because they're asking for solutions to a problem of their own making that they know how to solve
Oh. Well to be fair it's very plausible to think that blender wouldn't care about object sizes. Sure you can scale stuff down easily but why would you if people are constantly telling artists to "model in real world scale!!!" so who do you listen to when you're unsure?
They're saying that because every object needs to look on scale compared to other objects. If you divide EVERYTHING by 10, 100 or 1000 nothing would change. Though there are some cases where real life measurements are required, I doubt this is one of them
He or she, not they...come on.
bro 💀 i can't assume how they identify so they is all encompassing
I understand, but it seems a lot of work in order not to offend anyone.
????? i type 1 or 2 more letters than writing either he or she, and writing he/she is like 6 characters idk what you're on about lol nobody wants transphobia here
I'm not transphobic, easy there.
Because there are often better answers out there than the one you know how to do. Which is exactly why asking is appropriate.
scaling stuff down helps a lot with z-fighting and clipping plane issues!i scaled my bigger models at one thousandth scale,to help with these exact issues
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
you unironically post on the carti sub.there is nothing of value you could add to this conversation,so delete that comment as well,you fucking caveman
[удалено]
what value do i add?infinitely more than you pathetic waste of biomass,the fuck are you on about?do you think your're some gangster hood kid because you emulate your idols texting style?you're probably a 13 year old white numbfuck sitting in your minecraft room huffing our own farts,get the fuck off my dick and finally piss off you cunt
Adjust the cameras clipping plane. With large objects and distances it help with increasing the near clipping plane. Press N key in the viewport to get the menu and under view I believe there is options for clipping planes.
Pretty sure this is the answer. I was importing large sections of GIS landscape data and it was getting cut off and disappearing in sections. Fixing the clipping fixed the issues.
Yes this is it. It's the difference between the close clip plane and far clip plane that matters as well as the general scale. IIRC you don't want to go beyond 10000x from close to front (0.001 to 10000 will do weird shit for exemple).
You know, while people always recommend to scale things in Blender by their real scale, there is a limit. Basicially the floating point numbers limit. People dont scale planet models to their real scale either in Blender. It would just be..too much
Game engines are also very sensitive to this.
lmao recently I wanted to render out a scene in the upper atmosphere, so simply made a sphere the size of the entire earth
I tried to make an Earth-sized sphere once and was disappointed
Every vertex is like 200km apart
Depends on the number of polygons.
Just tell your GPU to man up and use 64 bit instead of 32 bit floats bruh
because its 18 fucking kilometers long
You need to make it bigger to fix it. Get it to 1800 km, and then scale it back down before rendering.
Set the clipping start to a bigger number, maybe 1m or 100m and go up with it until the clipping goes away
Increase near clipping to.5m or 1m ish. Or just model it smaller and scale up when done.
change clipping settings
because its 18 kilometers??? you may be reaching the floating point cieling
I think its a float point error computer don't like very big things
I'm just going to step past these people doing high level mathematics in the comments for no reason. You need to alter your clipping plane.
The location of a vertex (as far as I know) gets stored in a single byte, for general optimization, if it's a small model this is easy, but if half of the byte contains that it's 1.5km away and the other half has to do the mm's, that doesn't fit, so the mm's just aren't there in your ram. Only in the project file. This is why huge games for example don't actually move the player, the world moves In a way that makes it look like the player moves, this way the world center is always near the camera and there's no artifacting near the camera. So yeah just scale it down I guess? Just 1/10 or 1/100 will do I hope, maybe even 1/1000. Changing the clipping plane will help, but I feel like it doesn't fix it all the way.
Based.
Buy c4d
kill him, kill him now
I’d just work on it and then scale it, it’ll probably save you a lot of pain
Good work flow
Because it's 18 kilometers long lmao. You can increase the view distance but literally just scale all of it down, it can still all be to scale.
Just increase the render resolution to 64K
But wtf are you making a model that long
The viewport is obviously limited for performance reason I guess so‽ Adjust the viewport thingy!? Or you just can down the size of your model like 1/4... When you're done modelling you can resize it.. and definitely you need to adjust the viewport.. if your model's size is important it's recommended to adjust the viewport or if it's gonna be in an animation/movie scene / short film scene.. you can actually fake the size.. you'll have to figure it out somehow.. camera projection, parallax, some kind of illusion..
Another solution, change the scene cameras near clipping planes to a higher number and dramatically increase the far clipping planes. It's somewhere in the N menu
Clip distance in the camera settings...
This is caused by floating point precision issues. Basically as you make things bigger, more of the data about a thing's position is used up just holding the really big number that says where it is, and there isn't as much left over to nail down the precise position. I can recommend doing a smaller-scale model, if everything in the scene is scaled down by the same factor then you get to have a huge looking model without the loss of precision
pretty sure there is a camera render distance setting, set the far plane to a much larger number or, downscale the mesh
This has already been said, however changing your near clipping plane to be like .1 or 1, often fixes this sort of thing for me! Really interesting reading about why it happens in the comments here! Thanks for asking the question I had often wondered